Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive358

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Requesting an opinion[edit]

I don't know how significant only a threat to ban instead of an actual block or ban is, or whether this is the right place, but User:Ryan Postlethwaite has threatened to ban me, somebody that has been editing Wikipedia for years without one single temporary block, simply because I was asking somebody civilly if he was serious about something he has said.

User:SqueakBox has accused me of being a sockpuppet of a banned user here, and says he'll abstain from editing Wikipedia any longer if I'm not (literally he betted his "right to edit"). I then ask him on his talkpage if he's serious about that, and within a minute User:Ryan Postlethwaite not only deletes my question from SqueakBox's talkpage but even threatens to perma-ban me for it. Not reading his message or checking talkpage history within that minute, I put that question back once because I see nothing wrong with it, and it is immediately erased again.

As for the "canvassing" issue User:Ryan Postlethwaite refers to, that was because a very heated and active AfD was closed, obviously very controversially so when looking what its Deletion Review is turning into now, and nobody was informed at that time at all that a Review had been opened so I told the people that had been involved.

You can see a number of more threats on my two talkpages (User_talk:TlatoSMD and User_talk:Tlatosmd, creating two accounts was an accident years ago) which all directly relate to my interaction with User:SqueakBox, in fact all relating to me trying to tell him in a civil manner his behavior on Wikipedia is constantly disruptive, flaming, and generally unacceptable and intolerable both in talking to other editors and in constant edit warring, even repeatedly against admins, without any consensus in his favor, an issue where I have at least 20 people having encountered him for months agreeing with me, or that I told other people civilly he ought to get a formal warning from an admin. See also the fact he has been blocked several times for his behavior before. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You tried to tell one of our editors (SqueakBox) to leave, I reverted you and you asked him once again. That is harassment, and given you had just been warned for canvassing for the DRV, you should have realised you were on very thin ice. I explained to you that harassment is a banable offence, and I also said I would block you if you continued. We discuss disputes here, we don't try and make people leave the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Ryan Postlethwaite have been notified of this thread. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak has name-called, harrassed, and not been blocked (since November). There's something wrong with a WikiWorld that will ban someone at the first "problem" and yet allow these personal attacks by another to go unchecked. At this time, the worst ones are a few weeks old (I think), but what kind of precedence does that set? I agree with TlatoSMD and was likewise blocked thrice in 24 hours with minimal warning (the admin and I have come to an understanding since), but when I've been editing since 2005 without even a complaint, I think such an action is easily a personal affront. That said, I want to reiterate that the admin involved in my issue and I have resolved the situation (both of us were over-zealous due to external events, as both of us have admitted). See WP:DTTR for the same sort of mentality that "we" should all have for long-standing editors in not only templates, but in warnings and discussions. WP:AGF would demand no less. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) :-)
Ban him? I said I'd block him, I merely mentioned that harassment was a banable offence, I have no power to ban anyone of my own accord. Sometimes warnings have to be given, he's just had one for canvassing, then he went to SqueakBox's talk page, that's when he had to know what he was saying had to stop. However long someone has been here for, it gives them no right to ask another editor to leave. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I won't comment on VigilancePrime's blocks so nobody will suspect us of nepotism, but I endorse his opinion about SqueakBox. --TlatoSMD (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, harassment is indeed a bannable offense, but if there is no harassment taking place, saying so is at best a non-sequitur and at worst a threat. If you considered his actions to be harassment, you could have explained that a bit more clearly. —Random832 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that SqueakBox first said, "I'd wager my right to edit that he is the sock of a banned user." Albeit this was likely in jest and not words of a serious nature, I don't see anything wrong with TlatoSMD responding in like. Besides, if TlatoSMD is indeed not a sock of a banned user, then SqueakBox should be careful saying stuff that he did. If he can make such a statement on ANI, why can't the target of his accusation respond in a similar manner? It's quite reasonable to respond to an accusation of this sort on the editor's user page. Lastly, if my memory serves me right, SqueakBox has previously asked or pressured several editors to leave the project. Thus, I'm not sure what all this brouhaha is about. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to make a big stink out of either of those comments. Squeak and Tlato should both consider themselves warned. As long as they don't escalate everything will be fine. Mangojuicetalk 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Leaving TlatoSMD's methods aside (which in this case, however well-provoked, I disagree with), I see that SqueakBox did wager his right to edit on his assertion that Tlato is a sock of a banned user. I used to defend Squeak; Once he unmasked himself on my talk page by making vicious and untrue attacks on me, my tolerance for him ended. Squeak is the editor who's brought me closest to quitting this project. The honorable thing for him to do would be to have Tlato checkusered and, if Tlato isn't the sock of a banned user, make good on his wager. Whether he does the honorable thing is his own concern, not mine, not TlatoSMD's. --SSBohio 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As the checkusers say "Checkuser is not for fishing." In other words, he'd have to present them with a banned user and TlatoSMD and say "Are these the same?" Avruchtalk 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
He did specifically present banned users BLueRibbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as accounts he suspected me to be a sockpuppet of. Maybe being compared to somebody called Voice of Britain might even be an unwilling compliment as English isn't even my native language. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Mango, the "big stink", as you call it, was about the warning made by Ryan. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps created by User:Talessman[edit]

Hy, I'm not sure if this the correct place for this, but here it goes. I'm hereby reporting the following incidents and requesting some neutral assistance. In a laudable effort User:Talessman created several maps about the historical nations in wide geographical areas (western and eastern hemisphere, Mediterranean area and Near East). Afterwards he added them into several articles. However his maps are simply unfitting for several articles as they simply show a too wider area. The subjects of many articles (the country in question) is many times hidden among all the other ones and barely perceptible. The maps are also not focused upon the countries in question. If one removes the maps Talessman re-adds them again and again. I believe that he takes any opposition against the maps way too personally (they are his maps in the end). Flamarande (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I add the maps to articles where there are no existing maps of that nation/culture/people, or when the existing maps fail to show information about neighbors, or other nations that interacted with the article's subject. Some of the original maps were challenged because they showed the entire Eastern Hemisphere. So I cropped them to show the Near East, or Asia, during those time periods. That allowed readers to at least see the subject, and when they click on the map thumbnail they can get more info. If they don't want that info, then they don't have to click on the map. Most editors like the maps, some have grudges against them. Flamarande doesn't seem to have a grudge against them in general, Srnec does. When a legitimate grievance is given, and I am given the opportunity or ability to "fix" the maps to make them better for the article, I'm happy to do so when given time. The Byzantine Empire article is an excellent example. I could do the same for the articles Flamarande is talking about, but it will take time. For now the existing (already scaled-down) maps will have to do. Showing "too much information" isn't a crime; it enhances the articles by showing readers who the article subject's neighbors were, giving reader better information not otherwise presented in articles. There's no reason to delete them from the articles, especially when there is no other map available, or when the existing maps don't show relevant information. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition there's edits like this. One Night In Hackney303 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this guy took it upon himself to delete legitimate content from a page about me, saying that he is "cleaning up" the page. How did he clean it up? He deleted relevant information about who I am. I'm not just a political activist, I'm also a historian that actively contributes to Wikipedia. I've been told by local news organizations that they did check this page when researching info about me. Therefore it should be accurate. I don't embellish or make anything up, just clarify or make easier to read. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined, on the map issue, to lean partially on the side of including them. If NO OTHER map exists, they don't seem to be particularly harmful. If you think a better map needs to be made, do it yourself. If better maps do exist, and consensus exists to replace his map with a more appropriate one, that is fine. THAT BEING SAID, the WP:3RR rule is firm. Multiple reversions are not to be tolerated, and regardless of which side is "right", participating in revert wars merits an instant block, even if you are reverting to the "right version". So, stop removing or re-adding the images until consensus can be reached. If the two sides in this arguement cannot reach it amongst themselves, seek further comment by using dispute resolution venues such as requests for third opinion and requests for comment. 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, as there are indeed OTHER valid maps, the maps made by Talessman are largely not needed. He is including his own maps in dozens of articles everywhere. Just take a look at Domain of Soissons and at History of the Basque people (look at the history page of the second article - I'm simply not savvy enough to show it). There are plenty of users who remove his maps arguing that the maps are simply too large and what does Talesmann? He just re-adds them ad nauseam. Flamarande (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I re-add them or some other people do. The maps were made to show information that I couldn't find, even when looking on Wikipedia. How many articles fail absolutely to mention who their subjects neighbors or trade partners were? Reading many of the articles on Wikipedia, I walked away with NO understanding of who their neighbors were, what actual territories they ruled, etc. There are only a few editors who remove the maps, and there are a few who add them. But just deleting them off of an article b/c it has "too much info" is wrong, it deprives the readers of legitimate and helpful information, and it is unnecessary. The maps should be left on articles where they show the subject nation. Thomas Lessman (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User Talessman has stated that he added maps to articles for which *there were no maps*, that is acceptable and improves the project. We encourage original pictures as an exception to original research. On the issue of articles for which there *are* other maps, the specific map to use, should be taken to the Talk page of that particular article to achieve consensus. On the issue of notability of Lessman himself, it's not relevant to this heading, and the article has already been tagged and we'll see what process concludes. Wjhonson (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example, where Thalesman adds his hemisphere map to an article about the Gepids, although a local map was already there. Very inappropriate, I think. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter is using an old example from when I was first learning how to edit Wikipedia. Funny how he doesn't use the current version of the page, which also contains one of my maps at a more zoomed-in version. Notice the difference between the two maps; they both show different kinds of info and both are relevant to the article, even enhancing it. Why is that inappropriate or bad? Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that many of these maps are simply not useful or informative even when they are the only maps available and so are counterproductive. They are often too large in scale and too simplified of complex situations. Especially the Dark Age maps. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Srnec, you say here they aren't useful or informative, yet on other articles you complain that they are too informative. I provide sources on each map's sourcepage. Yes they are large in scale - they cover a wide area and they give a lot of information. But they show relevant and helpful information to the readers of the articles. They aren't imposing, and they link to a larger view of the map which allows the reader to see the subject and its neighbors, trading partners, etc. Since when has providing relevant information at the readers' convenience been a crime on WIkipedia? Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You guys are missing the point, that Wjhonson has left above... This is a case of an issue that needs to be taken up on an article-by-article basis and established by consensus on the article's talk pages, and not here. If you can't reach a consensus or compromise on your own, then bring it up at requests for comment and ask someone else to help solve the problem. If the map is added, and then removed don't add it back. Take it to the talk page and discuss it out. Also, don't remove the map from articles where no alternative exists, unless there is a good reason, and if it is removed, please be prepared to have a detailed explanation as to why it should be removed, and leave said explanation on the talk page. Again, if the two of you can;t reach a compromise, use dispute resolution to involve a neutral third party to help solve it. This thread is all heat and no light. Unless someone has violated policy, such as WP:3RR, this is not the place to report it. WP:ANI is not the place to win arguements or resolve disputes. 02:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Time for more points then. He's still editing his own article, adding sources that don't support the claims being made. I've explained here why the sources aren't acceptable, yet he's edit warring and making claims of vandalism and harassment. The AfD is looking like a snowjob, so it might be best just to purge the article sooner rather than later? One Night In Hackney303 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a map issue, however asside from the reverting of unwanted edits, you seem to be the top contributor on the article (Thomas Lessman) [1]. (related, If your Bio survives Afd, please be mindful of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a regular content dispute. Thomas Lessman needs to recognize that if his maps are removed, and reasons for the removal are given on talk, he cannot just add them back, he has to address the issues raised. From there, it's just Wikipedia:Dispute resolution like for everyone else. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. If someone has valid reasons to remove something (in this case the enormous maps, but texts and boxes are also included) one shouldn't simply ignore the fact and re-add the material again, again, and again. I understand this (it is one of the basics of Wikipedia), but Talessmann doesn't seem to understand this policy/philosophy. Flamarande (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Note this attack image, Image:Bullock the Hutt 01-2004.jpg‎, uploaded by Talessman. --A. B. (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not an attack image, it is a legitimate flyer distributed at an event of the organizaion the article was based on. It's being discussed on the image's talkpage now and is not relevant to this discussion. Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Talessman, Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself as you did here. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I explained why I did that, and hadn't realized I had broken a wiki-rule. That is being discussed now on my user talk page and on the image's talk page. Again, it is not relevant to this discussion. Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This entire thread should be on a talk page somewhere aiming for developing consensus, it's content related and nothing admins can do in this situation. Orderinchaos 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A parting comment on my part: it's important to note that Talessman has put a lot of work into improving Wikipedia. Yes, he may or may not be stubborn and yes, he may or may not have handled arguments over maps the right way. And I sure didn't like the image I cited above. Nevertheless, to me, his good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia far outweigh any problems discussed here and I hope a way can be found to work all this out. --A. B. (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently now I (and others) should be blocked from editing Million Dads March Network on the basis of us "trolling around and vandalizing or attacking". My sole edit to the article was this where I removed the outrageously POV word of "atrocities" in relation to divorce/custody situations. Trolling? Vandalizing? Attacking? None of the aforementioned, and I had no intention of making further edits to the article either. One Night In Hackney303 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
One Night In Hackney, I wouldn't worry about it or take it personally. It's clear to everyone else that you did not vandalize the article and that "atrocities" had to come out. Nobody is going to block you or protect the article at this point. Jayron gives some good advice elsewhere on this page.--A. B. (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I love me some drama.

Please review a block[edit]

I am posting this here at the suggestion of User:Newyorkbrad. I hope that I can get some help on this matter.

Dear NewYorkBrad,

I would like you to look into this, please. Recently a new editor logged in as User:Vittala. His first edits were to vote on two nominations for deletion, Jeff Rosenbaum and WinterStar Symposium. When he tried to edit some articles, he discovered that User:JzG Help! (AKA Guy) had blocked him just a few hours after his first edits, saying that he is "a sock-puppet or meat-puppet" of mine. It should be noted that Guy had voted the opposite way on these same two nominations, which were still open when he placed the block.

Vittala is not a sock-puppet of mine. Guy could easily have determined this by checking his IP address; he doesn't even live in the same state. I'm not sure what a "meat-puppet" is, but he did not edit or vote at my request. He contacted me after he was blocked, which was the first time I discovered who the person voting as "Vittala" was, and though he was aware of some of the things I've been going through lately on Wikipedia, I did not ask him to edit or coach him as to how to do it (if I had, he would have signed in correctly, rather than a bot being needed to fill in his name later). I have never used a sock-puppet, though I've certainly had problems with people who do.

Guy did not inquire or discuss this block first with me or Vittala. He obviously did not make his decision based on editing history, since there was none, or based on IP address. I believe that it is inappropriate for one person voting in a matter to block another while the dispute is still open, too. Guy has had a problem with my editing before, and has been IMO a bit uncivil concerning it. I challenged this block on his talk page, but he has not responded. The block he placed was indefinite.

I would request that you look this over, with hope that the block can be lifted. This is a new editor who honestly wanted to edit and create articles; he is his own individual, and no matter what Guy's motives are I think an indefinite block less than five hours later is draconian for the very first edit someone does. I am advocating for this since Vittala is totally inexperienced in such matters, and because I was accused of something of which I am innocent. Rosencomet (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet, you'll find information about meatpuppets here. — Scientizzle 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Useful links: Vittala (talk · contribs), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination)‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinterStar SymposiumScientizzle 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The operative definition of "meatpuppet" has been expanded greatly in the last few years - it used to mean "someone who's obviously a sockpuppet, but has an explanation that can't be disproven" (i.e. the "roommate"), now it means "anyone who communicates with and/or agrees with anyone else on something that I don't like". —Random832 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I endorse lifting the indef block. Guy seems to have acted a little hastily here. Yes, the contributions to the AFD discussions showed the signs of "meatpuppetry", but coming to help out a friend is hardly an instablockable offense. At worst, this user showed poor understanding of how Wikipedia works, and such problems should be met with help, not insta-blocking. This is a clear case of biting the newbie. No one even attempted to investigate or even talk to this user. A note on the talk page could have gone a long way towards addressing this. Heck, a block notice wasn't even left, leaving the user with no way to even know how to request an unblock. I say unblocking is the proper course of action now. 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Random832, that's a completely inappropriate comment. Please remain civil. Corvus cornixtalk 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, what? You actually think that Random's comment is in any way "uncivil" or "inappropriate"? I dearly hope this is some joke that I am not comprehending. --Iamunknown 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering about that too. His incivility, if it could be called that, was directed at an ill-defined word, not any one person. Overuse of a term denigrates its value in describing what it originally set out to describe. Orderinchaos 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me guess; he's someone you know, either in real-life, or online, and you talked to him (or in a forum he was party to) what you were doing on Wikipedia. He agreed with you, as friends are so wont, and decided that he should throw in his two cents as well. You didn't request him to chip in, but he went ahead and did it. It's a borderline situation, but since the intentions were honorable, I think we can show some lenience here and unblock. Just be aware that in the future, it might be a good idea to go your seperate ways on-Wiki, for the sake of propriety. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup. But whoever unblocks should be someone with the time to "coach" a bit, because otherwise this user will probably wind up right back in trouble. - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That seems an unreasonable request. There is no evidence that this user needs much coaching; the block in itself, if it hasn't scared them off, has shown them that what they have done is probably wrong. They appear to want to edit articles; there should be no assumption of bad faith here because there is so little evidence to go on. Unblock them, leave a mea culpa, leave a welcome template, and leave them alone is my recommendation. 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
In theory, you're right that the block should have set them straight, but without a block notice or message of any kind ... - Revolving Bugbear 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'll keep an eye on them for a couple of days. If no one objects in the next hour or so, I plan to unblock them. Speak now or forever hold your piece. 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I unblocked this user. The above discussion seemed to be heading that way, and no one has advocated for keeping the block in place. I will keep an eye on them. I have left a friendly message on the talk page, and if the user becomes a problem (I don't expect this) I will clean up my mess... 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Ntarantino21 (talk · contribs) - does this User's editing remind anybody else of a stalker? These edits seem creepy to me. Corvus cornixtalk 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree. very strange. Now what to do about the account. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I've revoked its editing privileges, just as Nickyt41191 (talk · contribs) was blocked before. And it's not that strange. There used to be an explicit speedy deletion criterion for Wikipedia articles that were being abused as solely vehicles for corresponding with the subject of the article. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Should be short-term blocked for continued transgressions. Has had 5 warnings now, including "final" ones, for various things, including violations of WP:VANDAL, WP:BLP and WP:NPA. Doesn't seem to be getting the message very clearly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show diffs? I don't see the vandalism in his contribs, perhaps I am being dense. Some uncivil edit summaries, certainly, and I see an edit war with two main participants, but it mostly looks like a content dispute. Why not try Talk:Number of the Beast in the first instance if you have a dispute? --John (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange user creation bug at Special:Userlogin[edit]

When I created a doppelganger account with my (current) IP address in it, the system seemed to allow it for some reason. Is this a bug that I should raise at bugzilla??

Either way, I did it per a suggestion on User talk:, where they suggested to the IP editor to create an account as My IP Address is (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

This is weird, I thought the system didn't allow IP addresses as usernames, but for some reason it does! Anyone else found this happen to them?? --Solumeiras (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any automatic prevention of creating usernames containing (but not being) an IP address, but they can be blocked for having a confusing username like many in User:PrimeHunter/IP-like user names. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that a criteria that would fall under the purview of WP:UAA? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, what is WP:BEANS (talk · contribs) upto? Woody (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing good, but blocked by Majorly. Imo a username that does not only consist of an IP address is not directly blockable at WP:UAA. -- lucasbfr talk 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what User: WP:BEANS is up to, but the username is ironic to User:PrimeHunter/IP-like user names being sorty WP:BEANsy, considering the page is a prime target and encouragement to create inappropriate usernames to end up on the list. — Save_Us 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I created it for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 6#IP addresses and have no plans to ever update it. It's only linked from there and here but I will delete it if people think it encourages misbehaviour. I have not gone through the list to examine contribs and blocks. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me like the name WP:BEANS is a WP:POINT violation - trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove the point that talking about this stuff is a violation of WP:BEANS. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Arab League images[edit]

User:Arab League has recently created several articles about several organization that most of them has been put for deletion. For those articles, he has uploaded several pictures and flags all with "PD-self" tags. There are two options:

  • He is a member of all of those organization. So, there MAY be a probability that he is the creator of those flags. This arises concerns about confilict of interests.
  • He is not a memeber of those organizations. So, definetly he has not created those flags, but for what he calls "truth" in here he has uploaded them with bogus tags. --Pejman47 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny business around David Gest[edit]

On RC Patrol I stumbled upon a strange sort-of edit war on David Gest. Normally I'd try to get to the bottom of things, but I have to run out the door right now. Any other admins with free time want to take a quick look? I did a semi-protect for 24 hours because there was a lot of traffic from 2 anons, and the most recent edits seemed to be nonsensical (putting a user-warning tag on the top of the page). --Bobak (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For a BLP, the article is woefully unreferenced (particularly given the potentially unfavourable he-said-she-said alleged claims from legal actions). Given a brief check through the history it's tough to find a stable version (this edit war seems to be but the latest that has beset the article). It had a few (not nearly enough) references back in August last year. Given the borderline non-notability of the subject (what exactly did he produce? briefly married to a famous-ish person, small part on a panoply of z-list tv shows) we should hack this back to a sourced stub confined to the matter for which he is notabile (whatever they might be). Recitations of divorce-court arguings and reality show minutiae, even if they were sourced, don't make for a worthwhile article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have done the hacking in question, restoring an August 2007 version with many sources. I also chopped a bunch of the sloppy trivia. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate an Admin reviewing my edits there befoer marking this as resolved, just to lend my edits the credibility of admin review per this an/i section. ThuranX (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Chicagofacts (talk · contribs) had been making what I believe to be good faith, but confrontational and edit-warring, edits in many gang-related articles. One of those articles, Latin Kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been subject of an edit war by him and an anon, to the point that I decided to impose protection to get them to discuss. Chicagofacts responded with this: [2], accusing me of being "high and mighty over something [I] clearly have no idea about." My response[3] apparently fell on deaf ears, as neither he nor the anon has tried to discuss at all.

Today, he was apparently editing as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) when he placed this[4] on my talk page, right after blanking the section on Talk:Latin Kings in which I had asked for discussion, along with other sections.[5]

I'd like to ask for the account and the IP to be both blocked for a moderate amount of time, in light of the continued refusal to discuss, the effort to stymie discussion by removing sections from the talk page, the blanking of his own talk page,[6], and what I see now as harassment. --Nlu (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I will short term block the ip that commented on your talkpage - I don't see the point of checkusering to see if it really was Chicagofacts, it could easily be someone shopping for a block instead but why bother? I will also leave a message on Chicagofacts talkpage commenting on what it is that sysops do. If this is ineffective then best bring it back here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Crisis on an article about a crisis in the middle east[edit]

There has been much debate at the article Iran-Iraq War. Some believe the US should be listed as a combatant, some disagree, and some believe the combatant part of the box should be sacked altogether. Both sides have very convincing arguments. Maybe a few admins could look at this, as now there are accusations of racism (or is it xenophobia? probably racism), bias, and caballing. JustinContribsUser page 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to calm this down a little: see my comment on the talk page. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good temporary solution. I think the box should just be removed. It can't express the actual degree of involvement, and there is no consensus either way. The box is optional, and sometimes no information is better than controversial information, regardless of whether it's right or not. JustinContribsUser page 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Angelo De La Paz[edit]

Dear Wikipedians User:Angelo De La Paz of buddhist vietnam origin is not allowing others to edit Islam in India the user is also vandalising article by taking out important paragraphs, decreasing numbers and so on. I provided User:Angelo De La Paz with lost paragraphs and upto date numbers along with Refferences in users Talk Page. please deal with user accordingly. please view users Talk Page first column Islam in India . Thanks. --HinduMuslim (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning at the user's page to stop reverting the article, and instead seek alternate ways of adressing the problem. He has been instructed to use the talk page to discuss reverts, and to build consensus before doing so again. He has also been told to attempt dispute resolution before attempting to revert the article again. He is now aware that repeatedly reverting the article is a violation of the Three Revert Rule and can be blocked for doing so. At this point, I don't see much else we can do. Since he has been warned, he may be blocked if the behavior continues, let us assume good faith for now and see if he follows my suggestions or not. 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK!Let's see who was the truly vandal!Please see what were you did in your contributions, note: is another IP adddress of HinduMuslim
  • Your attacks in my Talk Page:

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

HinduMuslim, could you please explain what the signifcance is that you feel the need to indicate that Angelo De La Paz is of Vietnamese Buddhist origin? That's skating really close to a personal attack violation. Somebody's background shouldn't be of import when discussing a difficulty, only their behavior. Corvus cornixtalk 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But user has no Idea of Islam in India no disrespect but user should allow others to edit article as well.

These are separate issues, and should not be conflated. Neither user has behaved in a particularly good manner over this issue, and the idea that dispute resolution should be used applies in this case to both of them. Both should stop all editing of the article, and seek outside intervention. 06:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

auto(un)block review[edit]

I just undid the autoblock that User:Trimy67 was stuck under. Trimy seems to be an actual non-trolling editor, even though some of his edits are a little problematic. (Hia998 was the original blockee.) However, as I was undoing the block, this happened.

Er... ? - Revolving Bugbear 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit might provide some clues. Pairadox (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleven day-old MfD[edit]

Would an admin mind cruising over to MfD and close out the entry from January 13? It has been open long enough. Regards. --12 Noon  03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IP range 156.34x[edit]

User: has been warned about edit warring (removal of logos). He removed a warning message from his talkpage as seen here. Later on, as User:, he continued his disruptive activities as seen here and here. About time he is blocked. Óðinn (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would be Libs. I don't think we'll be blocking such an established contributor for such a minor transgression. east.718 at 08:45, January 24, 2008
When did edit warring become a minor transgression? And, most importantly, when did a user's edit count start to count as immunity against the administrative sanctions? Óðinn (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Diff question, since when did we start counting the word of anon. new users that their returning anon. old users? MBisanz talk 09:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
At least on Evanescence, it looks like he removed a logo from the "Name" field of the infobox, which would seem to be entirely proper due to the fact that the logo seems to have been causing the actual photo of the band to not display. As near as I can tell, this IP only did so once on this article. Nevermind, it was twice. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
...and it looks like there were multiple incidents at Slayer. In that case, the photo looks OK with the logo, so there's no formatting issue from that standpoint. Not discussing the issue is a pretty serious concern, as well. Is there a policy on the use of a logo and photo in the infobox? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Currently being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. We could do with some more experienced people to comment there; at the moment it is an even split between those who are in favour of having made-up "logos", in most cases just some typography cropped from an album cover, in the infobox of every band article, and those who would rather do without unless there is some verified evidence that it is actually considered a logo. (No prizes for guessing which side I am on!) Edit-warring is certainly unhelpful; then again, so is forum-shopping. --John (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
But Libs did not cite "made-up logo" as the reason for the removal on Evanescence and Slayer. Rather, it was something like "image in text-only field". But if the image is removed simply because it's been decreed that name is a "text-only field", then the image should be put somewhere else in the article. Otherwise it's orphaning the image. Gimmetrow 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hence the discussion I refer to above. I don't want to duplicate that discussion here; suffice it to say that orphaning non-free image files which are not essential to the article, and which are in most cases made up, is not necessarily a bad thing. --John (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You talk a lot about the so-called made-up logos. I´d like to see some examples. Was there concern that this or this are not the actual logos of Blind Guardian and Nighwish respectively? How come such concern was not raised first on one by one basis, as opposed to just blindly removing every logo you can come across? In any case, questioning of the logos' validity is not the point here. Edit warring, for which the IP in question has already been warned is. Óðinn (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um?.. An edit that is based on consensus and has a valid edit summary attached to it is not an edit war... its encyclopaedia building. And "the IP in question" is "Libs". It's OK for you to refer to me that way in your biased/anti-anon complaints. The new lean is to move the logos into the article mainspace since the infobox name field is "text-only". There is some debate as to whether the logo should have some claim to notability or historical use... but moving them into mainspace just so the bots don't get them is a fair enough "lean" for now. ( at least it should be because I have been doing it all day ) If someone wants to go back and delete them all that can happen later. For now the only consensus is Name=Text-Only on the grounds that Wikipedia, by its own mandate, is a free encyclopaedia built on free content first. And there just isn't anything more "free" than plain text. And WP:FAIR's foundation is free-use wins out over fair-use... so not only is it consensus to replace the poor quality fair-use graphics with text... its policy. I've been moving poor quality/"questionable official" logos down into article mainspace all day. Since the Evanescence article has been brought up as an example here previously... perhaps one of the earlier editors in this discussion could take the time to move that band's logo out of the infobox. If no one has the time... that's OK... I can always pick it up in my travels. (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the user who filed the notice is pushing WP:POINT here. Even on the notice itself there is consensus that Libsey has done no wrong. I don't really understand why Odin is clutching at straws. ScarianCall me Pat 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Please stop edit warring on logo removals. The removals are approaching three reverts all over, which violates Wikipedia policy, and disruptive editing / edit warring short of 3RR on any given article is still blockable behavior." Óðinn (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the best thing would be to provide comprehensive diffs - this includes evidence of edit warring "all over", it also includes showing that he's broken/near to breaking 3RR "all over". That would allow people to make a more logical/fair/just decision. Rather than coming here pushing your own point (You're involved in this because you uploaded the logo's, take a look at the said user's talk page for evidence) and showing a few questionable diff's for evidence. I suggest you relax and a take a breath. It's understandable that you're annoyed because you uploaded all/most of the logo's but you've just got to relax and take it in your stride please, friend. ScarianCall me Pat 21:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one who goes around and accuses people of being point-pushing stalkers. It might behoove you to follow your own advice. Further, if you have a problem with the warning the IP in question was given, take it up with the admin who issued it. I have nothing to do with it.Óðinn (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Note to everyone, look at this incarnation of the IP in question. Now he's specifically after the logos I've uploaded, citing the same "consensus" which can't possible exist yet, since the discussion is still in progress. Oh, Scarian, were you saying something about stalking? Óðinn (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And take a look at the Revision history of Epica (band) If that's not revert-warring, I don't know what is. Óðinn (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a plainly sarcastic quip aimed at myself: "Oh, Scarian, were you saying something about stalking?" ([7]). That sort of retort is unhelpful especially when you are requesting advice on the noticeboard. Admins are unlikely to offer help to someone who is being rude. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from engaging in language that could be perceived as aggressive. Please read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. ScarianCall me Pat 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable way to contact this user? I wanted to give feedback on three inappropriate vandalism warnings but don't know how. ( handed out three vandalism warnings, each of them a "last warning" where no previous such warning was given, and each of them in what looks to me like a good faith content dispute or a slow edit war in which 156.34.x is involved.) --Hans Adler (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting community ban for two tendentious, disruptive editors[edit]

Please look over [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished user_Vanished user_2|this action]] and comment about my proposed remedy [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished user_Vanished user_2#Move_for_a_community_ban_against_those_bringing_this_tendentious_RfC|here]]. It is time that the community of administrators took action against those forces seeking to disrupt Wikipedia for their own goals of promoting fringe theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant move, this may be the first time in a year I've seen anything worthwhile come out of an Rfc. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Abridged is looking for a graceful way out. I know nothing of the underlying issues, but if they choose to exercise their right to vanish, perhaps we should let it go at that? Of course, there's the issue of whether they are still in good standing. Anyway, just a thought. — Satori Son 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Vanished user 2#Community Ban|here]] explaining why this proposal is utterly ridiculous... and shameful. LaraLove 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an unnecessarily harsh reaction to a proposal from a number of long-term constructive editors. I will assume you merely are unaware of the background to the situation, since you stated previously that you were "too busy" to read the full story.[8] Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond Arritt. Lara, you do not understand the real story here. The community is speaking. It is appropriate that you listen to what the community is saying.--Filll (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not "unnecessarily harsh". I don't care what the background is. If I don't have a blocklog or links to RFCs or other processes we use here to deal with disruptive users, then I don't agree that requesting a ban is appropriate. I look at it as laziness that nothing was done before. And now people want to jump at an opportunity to ban the users for abuse of process when one has less than 1000 edits and less than 4 months experience. Is that overly harsh? Does that not make sense to you? LaraLove 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2 [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You've argued that one of them is inexperienced and doesn't know better; you've argued that the other should be respected because of his experience. But you apparently have no interest in the obvious question: why didn't the experienced editor counsel the inexperienced one that this was totally inappropriate? You can't have it both ways, Lara. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I am forced to spend 50 hours or more to build up a case against one or both of these tendentitious editors, that is just time I will not be spending on the project. And then someone like Lara will just let them go without even a warning, or unblock them after some other admin blocks them. Whig has an ugly track record. And anyone who has edited with him knows it. How about this, Lara. Show me some productive edits from Whig, instead of forcing me to spend dozens of hours compiling his record of unproductive edits? You are claiming it is your right to force us to deal with a nightmare so maybe something good will come from either of these two editors in a few months or years time.--Filll (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is warn, then blocks, then a ban. Sort of that whole protocol thing. the_undertow talk 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(EC, but to what I don't know) Or not, Filll. The burden isn't on me. You can't just ban a user that has never been blocked or through any of the processes we have in place here for disruptive editors because you've not been inclined to do anything about this behavior that is so outrageous to you. And Raymond, I never said Whig should be respected. I said that considering he is an established editor and encouraged Abridged to file the RFC, that should be taken into consideration in regards to AGF on the part of Abridged. LaraLove 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I already did most of the research to respond to some accusations Whig made in the RfC:

Requests for comment Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2

Start by reading these threads in ANI archives 311 and 317: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive311#User:Whig, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#User:Whig

Here are some recent diffs:

I noticed that the admin who was mentoring you may not be around. This presents a slight problem for you, in that you were unblocked on condition of a number of editing conditions and agreements, which were designed and agreed by the community, to help you stay out of problems.

To sum up, these were as follows, as best I understand it: 15 October, following community consensus at WP:ANI: [9]

  • 6 months of 1 revert rule, If you revert content in an article more than once per week, you will be blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
  • Civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
  • You are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 6 months, you may use the talk page. You may revert simple vandalism.

FT2 goes on to say: "The community decisions of 15 October remain. They were decided by the community, not by mercury."

Whig's recent behaviour has also been poor. For instance, he has:

  1. done a tendentious Afd on Quackery AfD [[User_talk:Whig/Archive_1#Re:_Quackery_AfD|Discussion about it, warning him for his behaviour] To quote East718:
Like I said, that was a colossal mistake at best; more likely it was you trying out subtle disruption. A dispute of that sort would be best resolved by posting a polite and narrow message on the talk page, requesting third opinions, and then going down further steps of dispute resolution if conflict persists. Please don't repeat such behavior.
  1. He was soon after in trouble for edit warring - despite the 1RR.

Also to the point is this in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive356#Incivility_by_Peter_morrell. I've added some emphasis.

I think there is a problem here, inasmuch as Vanished user is held to a double standard as an admin and is not blocked for his own ongoing gross incivility to editors with a different POV than his own particularly regarding the subject of homeopathy. I have given recent evidence of this in his RfC.Vanished user_Vanished user#View_by_Whig Because he treats other editors with disrespect, he may be expected occasionally to receive some negative criticism. —Whig (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* Have a look at the diffs Whig provides. They basically amount to me saying that he still has problems as an editor, particularly with only reading part of what people say to him, and... basically, all the problems from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2, though at a slightly lower level. Whig may not like hearing it, but my position is easily defensible by diffs, (see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished user_Vanished user#Criticism_of_Whig.27s_behaviour_is_justified_.28Vanished user_Vanished user.2C_response_to_Whig.27s_comment_below.29]]) [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User talk:Vanished user|talk]] 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to look at Vanished user's response, then you might read the follow-up conversation in the talk, but I'm not going to bother digging up diffs for this noticeboard, since this really is an ArbCom matter. For the record, his comment here is incivil, because he presumes some reading deficiency on my part. —Whig (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, his comment above is not uncivil, unless you're trying really hard to be offended. You criticized his behavior; he criticized yours. Even in the surreal atmosphere currently prevailing on Wikipedia, this is not proscribed by WP:CIVIL. If it were, it would be impossible to meaningfully discuss... well... anything. To go back to the intial part of the thread: a reasonable block, and an unacceptable screed on Peter's part. Just because Vanished user is currently embattled does not mean that everyone who dislikes him gets free license to poke him with a stick. MastCell Talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Viewing the situation, their RFC against Vanished user appears to me to be nothing more than a strategic move on their part intended to waylay an opponent rather than a good faith effort at DR which was already underway with Vanished user's RFAR and original RFC. That being so, their filing of an additional RFC is tantamount to repeatedly poking a caged animal with a stick, and for that sort of incivility and disruption and absent any indication from Whig that he'll steer clear of Vanished user in the future I support some sort of a ban to end the disruption. FeloniousMonk (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC per above[edit]

For further comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3 may be useful. May as well spend a week and do this properly, so that the ban will stick. [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This still has nothing to do with Abridged, which the editor I've been concerned with the whole time. LaraLove 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Abridged should be blocked, and never said she should. She has been a productive editor on the whole, and some simple advice should be enough to get her past this thin-skinned phase, or so one can still hope. It is possible that problems might continue - her recent stay on Wikipedia has been more problematic than her former one - but I worked productively with her for a couple months a while back, and this recent behaviour seems atypical. [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than banning[edit]

Problems should be solved with less force when possible. See [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vanished user 2]]. I hope that isn't vexatious. Jehochman Talk 10:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


I object to the whole process here. On one hand, there is another RFC going about Whig.

On the other hand, the case is being argued here.

The court system is carefully set up to ensure that matters are only dealt with in one court. I think there is a lesson to be learned.

The more I see of Wikipedia RFC's, the more I agree with ScienceApologist's comment about "despising this process".

Wanderer57 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: Rouge admin needed[edit]

Rouge admin desperately needed.

I noticed on the Reliable sources noticeboard and Fringe theories noticeboard, there have been a lot of politics brought up, recently.

So, I did some searching at Special:Linksearch of political websites which would typically be unreliable. Here's a brief list of what I found:



(non-partisan\third party)

Now, per WP:Anti-elitism I know what the knee-jerk response is going to be and I have my counter-rebuttal prepared: Yes, I know that extreme, self-published, or biased sources (like advocate groups or political opinion pieces) aren't necessarily unusable sources, if the subject involves the source itself or the article otherwise is referencing a notable opinion. However, that's not what's being done here if you take a look at the links above, and there are rampant violations of policy which are being ignored. If you dig through those sources, you find plenty of them being used to establish facts on major articles, in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Any good admin needs to run through there with the banhammer.

As noted above, that was just a brief list I made. More extensive searches and lists of URLs frequently used as unreliable sources should also be pursued. As a few particularly horrible examples, the white supremacist forum, [29] is currently used as a source for the article on National-Anarchism [30], on Anarchism and Nationalism [31], and on the biography of Gerald Fredrick Töben [32] On that last point, Gerald Töben is an anti-semitic nutcase, but nevertheless, it's a blatant violation of WP:BLP to be making claims that he's "a favorite among white supremacist organizations such as StormFront" and cite that using a forum post on   Zenwhat (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my word, what a mess. This needs more time than I can currently spare. For now I've killed the uses of Stormfront as reference but the rest of the points Zenwhat brings up need very careful looking at. At the very least, cluebats for people who think Stormfront is a reliable source are certainly in order. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I did that a while back. Find who reinserted them and LART them, I would suggest. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly doubt is a reliable source; I would be leaning more towards the spam blacklist for it... Stifle (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stifle, Wikipedia is not censored and it was noted a while back on WP:VP that the spam blacklist is a bit too rigid. There are some rare cases where Stormfront might be reliably sourced. Examples:

I will say, though, that it might be OK to blacklist stormfront if there were some way that administrators could approve the rare exceptions to the blacklist (something nobody can currently do), since although 99% of the time it's used by vandals, Stormfront might be used once or twice on Wikipedia appropriately.

Also, another comment too: Media Matters, Newsbusters, etc., are frequently prone to misleading assertions because they're advocacy groups, but they often do cite primary sources, like videos and articles in the mainstream media. Instead of just removing the sources immediately, it might be a good idea to quickly check the sources briefly to see what sources they, themselves, cite and then replace the URL with that citation instead.

In the meantime, it occurred to me that it would probably be a good idea to create what could be called a "greylist," a list of URLs I know that are regularly abused by trolls.   Zenwhat (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat/Greylist.   Zenwhat (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been a bit rogue here, and added all of them, except for geocities (should I add that one as well?), to the revert list of User:SquelchBot (the replacement of User:AntiSpamBot), new accounts and IP-accounts (except if they are whitelisted) will now be reverted and warned. This does not disallow the use, but gives a warning to new users to check the use of these links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I should add, due to several issues with blog sites (WP:COI, WP:RS, [WP:OR]], WP:EL etc.), blogspot was already on that list. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is really bad. I removed a few egregious examples, including some where claims on BLPs were sourced to these political fringe sites. Much more work is needed. *** Crotalus *** 14:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
even Stormfront is a RS for saying that something has appeared on Stormfront, if that is relevant to the article. DGG (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


This user is a consistent uploader of copyrighted images (see the long list at User talk:Groupakarl). It seems with all of those notices he'll never cooperate with other people (mistaking it for another bot-notice. What should be done about this? --Howard the Duck 12:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen worse talk pages than that. How about sending him a hand-written message about Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and watch his uploads? — Save_Us 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering and Dalai Lama[edit]

Not really sure how to handle this one. User:B9 hummingbird hovering is a prolific editor of Buddism-based articles; he doesn't however, appear to mind that by rewriting them almost entirely in jargon is detrimental to their readability. His edit summaries, when they aren't just reiterations of the text, are incomprehensible; his talk page edits likewise.

His talk page has a whole list of examples of cases when he's been difficult to work with in the past. Right now, on Dalai Lama, he continually rewrites passages to make less sense to uninitiated readers. Nor does he take too kindly to having edits reverted (that example got him a 31-hour block).

Turning away productive editors isn't a good idea, but neither is the gradual translation of every article on Tibetan Buddhism into Tibetan. Any suggestions? Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation on main page?[edit]

Significant portions of text on The_Drug_Years are identical to pieces from this apparently copyrighted reference noted on the article. I can't see any mention of copyright matters and there are no significantly different versions in the article history. Second opinion wanted. Kosebamse (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bwah, this should probably have gone to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. My apologies. Kosebamse (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, WP:ERRORS is probably a better place to discuss errors and problems on the main page. Items posted at Template talk:Did you know are supposed to be reviewed before they get posted to Template:Did you know/Next update and then to Template:Did you know, but this one apparently fell through the cracks. (I'm not perfect at reviewing the submissions either.) Any help reviewing submissions at T:TDYK would be appreciated. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised the copyright bots didn't pick up on this, as it was a word-for-word copy. I've stubbed the article. Newswire asserts copyright over their releases, and even if they didn't it's shoddy to copy-paste a press release. --JayHenry (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone might want to inform Conman33, the creator of the article, about this. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the standard {{uw-copyvio}} Woody (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of admin action welcome[edit]

I know that AN/I is often flooded with editors crying "admin abuse" at the drop of a hat, but I am somewhat concerned about this one. With the current arbitration case about episodes and characters, especially concerning redirects currently carrying on, it was disappointing to see another edit war on an article last night. What is very concerning, though, is admin User:PeaceNT's last edit to the article, restoring their preferred version whilst the article is in full protection. Whilst PeaceNT at first claims that this version is not their preferred one [33], they later admit that the edit "was done under IAR" and to "protect Wikipedia" from either ArbCom or deletionists - I'm not sure which ([34]}. This last comment really concerns me, as it suggests that not only was the article reverted to a preferred version (which is not good to begin with), but it wasn't even done through any semblance or intention of following policy. Comments welcome. BLACKKITE 07:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, a long edit war with accusations of bad faith all around and virtually no discussion on the talk page. Given the length between the first redirecting and the edit war, as well as the somewhat unchallanged claim of individual notability, it seems quite unapparent what the correct wrong version is (unless the discussion took place somewhere else and I'm just completely unaware of it). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I IARed and reverted what I perceived as the evidently non-consensual version, whether I preferred it or not didn't matter. Editors are certainly not allowed to delete/redirect articles on a whim, then persist on warring to get the page protected, especially when their conduct is being examined by the Arbcom. That said, I would have no problem if they use discussion and redirect the article based on consensus, when such thing is reached. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus isn't the point here. You do not IAR and revert when an article is fully protected, even if it is in the Wrong Version - which, actually, I agree it probably is. That is unless there are serious issues such as BLP, which there aren't here. Your reasoning for doing so, which appears to be related to the ArbCom, strikes me as seriously worrying. BLACKKITE 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I am party to no Arbcom procedures. PeaceNT points at a lack of consensus for the redirect, and she has a weak point. There probably isn't one among Pee-Wee Herman fans. Still, the article is a 6 paragraph plot summary with no sourcing, so even if all the Pee-Wee Herman fans said "no redirect", policy would indicate that redirection was appropriate. Remember, this is not a democracy, and only arguments that are weighted in policy have weight at all. Given that, there is no urgent matter that required violating standing policy: PeaceNT was absolutely unjustified in editing the article in a protected state. A second admin, Merovingian, has also edited it while protected. His edits were mechanical, so I can't get too excited about those, but they still irritate me.Kww (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be two names of the article: Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special is at present an article, and apparently the one at controversy. Pee-wee's Christmas Special is a redirect to the list of episodes. DGG (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Editing the issue that article was protected for, is a no-no. Full article protection should apply to admins too. Seraphim Whipp 16:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

is a reasonable argument on the talk page over whether the notability of this episode, which apparently individually won an Emmy, has adequate sources. This is enough that consensus is required for the particular redirect. My personal position is that the change to the redirect for these articles, earlier and now, constituted vandalism, and any editor may revert as needed, and any admin can protect in the unvandalized state--but I know not everyone agrees with this evaluation of the overall situation. One could certainly say that changing back to a revert while the original series of reverts was under arbitration is not acceptable. An alternate technique, waiting until the article happens to be in the state you prefer, and then protecting it, is as much as violation of the spirit of the restrictions on administrative action as changing it first, though there is no explicit prohibition. Given the dissension, I wouldnt have done what Peace did. It was at best a little imprudent and aggressive. DGG (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up note : PeaceNT seems to be moving in the direction of undoing redirects where she isn't personally convinced of the consensus. Fans of Bulbasaur are all upset because their favorite Pokemon isn't deemed to be more important than the other 400. So, today she agreed to revert a redirect (and presumably stand guard over it). At this time, she hasn't edited that article in its protected state, but even her stated intent establishes a pattern of editing. I have a hard to giving credence to her protestation that the unredirected version of the Pee-Wee article isn't her preferred version.Kww (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So you assume that every editor who oppose redirection is Fans of Bulbasaur? On behalf of editors who try to build consensus for the discussion, I feel intensely insulted by that comment. @pple complain 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Remember: this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If you disagree with editing content or any related-redirection/merging issues, bring your views to relevant discussions, like Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20) or Talk:Bulbasaur‎. Complaint like "Fans of Bulbasaur are all upset because their favorite Pokemon isn't deemed to be more important than the other 400" is absolutely unappreciated and out of the context. @pple complain 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(response to Kww -edit conflicted)
Oh dear, I reserve the right to learn from my mistake; I was hasty to revert the protected page yesterday, that, now I do acknowledge. But i don't see where your complaint is comming from, I haven't reverted any protected articles without consensus today, even though I must restate that I am firmly opposed to the soft deletion of a former FA without any consensus, thus in favor of undoing it. I only stated that I'd like to restore the page and start a formal discussion, AGF here, please. Don't accuse me of intending to edit war just because I am not "personally convinced of the consensus". "personally"? I beg your pardon? What about the DRV today where all administrators who participated felt the redirection was unjustified? What about the follow-up AfD where everyone voiced "keep" (except TTN, of course, since he or she was the one who redirected the page). A quick glance at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop will show you I'm not the only one there who is "personally" against this behaviour. I'm very sorry, but this continual misconduct in the form of redirecting/deleting without discussion has to stop I don't understand for the life of me why you posted a new thread at the end of ANI page accusing me of having "meat-puppet", with a charged heading; even if you felt certain that you were right, you could have continued with this current thread. Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I refactored the title. I assumed that you and Trialsanderrors had communicated ... perhaps that assumption was unwarranted. Redirecting an article like Bulbasaur is not misconduct, and I strongly, strongly resent the implication that people that do so are vandals. Regardless, the article was protected as a redirect, and the redirect was undone while the article was protected.Kww (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
On review I see no reason to dispute PeaceNT's version of events above. This part of the matter should be closed IMO. Orderinchaos 22:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More protection fun with PeaceNT and Trialsanderrors[edit]

Another long-standing redirection battle has been around Bulbasaur, one of the 400 Pokemon articles that was redirected to a list of Pokemon characters. This morning, while the article was full-protected, PeaceNT promised to restore the article from re-direction, calling the redirect "blatantly unjustified". Perhaps mindful of the controversy of her earlier editing of Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special, where she also ignored all rules about the editing of protected articles, she did not do so. Instead, a couple hours later, User:Trialsanderrors changes article under protection, for the purpose of restoring an article, and adding an AFD notice, even though no one has been campaigning for deletion, just a redirect. Now that it is in her preferred state, PeaceNT unprotects, and now the AFD notice has been removed because, as Uncle G points out, no one ever requested a delete in the first place. Doesn't article protection mean anything anymore?Kww (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not again. Who do you think is my "meat-puppet"? User:Trialsanderrors??? - PeaceNT (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Very funny, Kww. I am tired of the way you let your personal animosity towards PeaceNT, whose opinion differs from yours, spurring uncontrollably in your comments. The accusation of sockpuppets against two respected administrators is even more ridiculous. PeaceNT has clearly explained why she unprotected the Bulbasaur article, which is a very thoughtful decision. Try to dig out some more before creating more drama here. @pple complain 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not crying to create drama, I would like to see people obey a basic rule: do not edit protected articles for reasons related to the reason they are protected. Simple. Basic. Easy to follow. Violated again.Kww (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Violated again? Who? Unprotection with valid rationale is no way an evidence of policy violation. Not to mention that the hasty action from the protecting administrator in such case was questionable and injudicious. @pple complain 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It was Trialsanderrors that edited a protected article in a protected state. I assumed that this was done in order to fullfill PeaceNT's promise. Perhaps they were unrelated, but this timing seems significant.Kww (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kww, I think you misinterpreted the situation. I assume, based on what you wrote, that you believe User:Trialsanderrors is my meat puppet because he or she restored the article and started an AfD without visible talk page discussion, and after I said I would do so. In fact, you may see that User:Trialsanderrors closed a relevant DRV today, where the result was to relist the page in question. The admin edited the protected page properly to add the deletion notice. For the record, I am unrelated to User:Trialsanderrors; I never asked him/her to do anything for me and honestly I don't remember whether we ever talked. I hope this clarify the issue, please re-examine the situation. Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kww, two admins performing the same action is far from a valid evidence for sockpuppet accusation. If you are still too enthusiastic with this sockpuppetry drama, make your own research and report it to WP:RFCU when enough proofs of relation between the two accounts are found, if any. Good luck. @pple complain 18:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for not notifying me of this discussion, I guess. For the record, I've closed about a thousand DRV discussions in my Wikilife, and I still regularly move the discussion to the related content forum if no admin deletion is to be discussed. I'm not always aware of explosive situations elsewhere, so I propose the best way to point them out to me is on my talk page. In this situation, I think I made clear that I have no editorial opinion on the article, nor do I actually know the editors involved. Keep on buzzing. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

the final touch?[edit]

Graham Wellington (talk · contribs) is a long-time problematic editor with highly dubious intentions. See his talk page and contrib history. Until now, he has managed to stay just below the action-taking point. This edit summary, however, puts it over the top. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess next step is RfC? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Am I missing something? That would seem to be a POV-loaded edit summary, but what's actionable about "the beauty of Judaism"? - Revolving Bugbear 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes you are missing something. Adding that a criminal is Jewish doesn't bring out the "the beauty of Judaism." And that's his modus operandi - plastering "he is jewish" on criminals etc....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to see it in context of previous edits; a lot of his previous edits are adding Jewish categories to the likes of criminals, porn stars etc. (Though, there's also what look like good-faith edits too). BLACKKITE 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't looking at the article, just the edit itself. Sorry. </stupid> - Revolving Bugbear 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at his contribs history, his edit summaries are VERY problematic, and looking at his user page he has been warned before. A choice collection of OTHER edit summaries, in addition to the one noted above:
[35] threatens other user with admin sanction...
[36] additional questionable statements about jewish people.
[37] crackpots???
Additionally, his entire edit history consists almost ENTIRELY of:
Dubious "proof" that various mass murders, notorious criminals and other "unsavory" people were Jewish [38] and [39] and [40] and [41]
That other notable Jews were guilty of or suspected of crimes [42]
This seems like a suspicious pattern of edits, and needs to be addressed. 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that he also views Albert Einstein as a fraud and is unwilling to credit him with E=mc2 ([43]). Given this editor's particular history, his interest there could credibly be thought to stem from the fact that Einstein was Jewish, rather than his deep abiding interest in the history of 20th-century theoretical physics. Even assuming the most optimistic best-case scenario about his intentions, his edits fall entirely into the patterns described above of ascribing Judaism to distasteful figures while minimizing or discounting positive accomplishments by people who happen to be Jewish, and I've blocked him for 31 hours for disrupting Wikipedia to advance his point. I would suggest that an RfC proceed to explore the question of whether he might expand and improve his editing, and whetherh his continued presence on Wikipedia would be constructive. MastCell Talk 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A bold move, but I don't disagree with the final result. I think the user has yet to show any good-faith edits, and the longer he is editing articles, the more clear his POV-pushing has become. 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see how a block will solve the underlying problem, and I cannot say I'm looking forward to the RfC. DGG (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
a block will stop his disruptions. i favor a indefinite community ban for this user, to be repealed ONLY in the evnet of genuine contrition and a promise to attempt to wokr with other editors instead of warring against them. Smith Jones (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In general, an RFC in this case will atleast show due process. I agree it will be messy. I see an ArbCom in the future over this issue, but we should atleast exhaust all other routes before this gets that far. 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Has this editor added any value to this project? I confess, I'm missing the part where we should use kid gloves in handling a hate-monger and anti-semitic. I don't see that its worth wasting time on this. Please let me know why we aren't simply blocking this editor for a month or three hundred, and re-blocking every time he does it again, up to and including indef. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

i have no idea why not KillerChihuahua. all this dickering around does is encourage the vandal. i can understnad the desire for 'due process' by forming an RFC (although it wl be a waste of time -- the user has showns no interest in wikipedia and while i try to asume good faith this user seems to be acting maliciousl and with disregard for the feling and sentiments of his fellow users. i recommend an indefinite ban that will only be lifted if the user apologizes an d promises to try to work with other users against instead of using violence and racism. Smith Jones (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: SERIOUSLY look at his diffs. he blatatly tries to use his admin status to force andother user to kowtow to his demands.
and if you look mclosely at his other difs, you will jnotice a virulent strain of politicla hatread and anti-Semitism. that is unhelpful tow ikipedia orwikipedia's ineterests.
and furhter more,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talkcontribs)
It would be a bit difficult for him to use his admin status to do anything, as he never had it to begin with. That being said I agree with the block. Orderinchaos 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that may go too far at this point. If an indefinite comprehensive ban is imposed, it is drastic enough that an ArbCom decision should give it, not us. Also, the RFC in question may reach the conclusion that a community topic ban on all articles relating to Judaism, and on all edits regarding Jewish ethnicity may be enforced. Likewise, the admins here at ANI may reach the same conclusion, and enforce their own community ban. There is good reason to let due process run its course. I will admit that this users past edit history is not encouraging, but lets at least GIVE him enough rope... and wait to see what he does with it. 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Due process? You mean Rules-Wankery? I've made 49 indef blocks. None were a result of an ArbCom decision. None have ever been overturned. I will cheerfully6 paste them all here, or email to anyone who emails me and asks for the list. An indef block is simply a block with no expiration, which can be overturned by any admin. No need for ArbCom. No need for Rfc. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made many indefiniate blocks myself, for clear-cut cases of vandalism and abusive sockpuppetry and other clear cases. However, this is not one of those cases, in my opinion. 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not? This reads as short, I apologise - its a simple question. I honestly don't see why not. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, you state "I think the user has yet to show any good-faith edits" which means he has no value-add. Why do you think this is "not one of those cases"? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I considered just blocking him for a longer period, or indefinitely, and being done with it. In fact, I had "1 month" in the drop-down window and changed my mind at the last moment. In the end, the pendulum has currently swung to a point where even blocks of editors with long track records of being up to no good are controversial, or likely to be overturned because shorter blocks hadn't been imposed first or an RfC hasn't been run through. So I decided to balance rougeness with my lack of desire to squabble over an longer block. Admittedly, though, this could be viewed as a punt. I will go on record as favoring a longer block of 1 month to indefinite, and being willing to impose it, if there is reasonable agreement here and no major objection (of course, if you support the block, you'll probably end up in the dock before ArbCom next to me as part of the "kangaroo court", so be warned...) MastCell Talk 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
NB there is an {{unblock}} request up, based on free-speech and other grounds, which I'll leave to someone uninvolved to review. MastCell Talk 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a comment pointing him to WP:FREE before I saw this here. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I had prepared a report for AN/I many weeks ago should circumstances dictate. To summarise, my good faith has long been exhausted and I would endorse an indefinite block of him. I first contacted "Graham" when I reverted an edit adding an unquestionably irrelevant link to the King David Hotel bombing. Cursorily glancing at his talk page caught my attention and, having reviewed his contribution history and interactions with others, I decided to leave a more substantive message than I originally anticipated. My intention was to communicate my concerns (as both an editor and admin'), introduce him to the fundamentals of Wikipedia, give him the benefit of the doubt, and hopefully allay concerns that had already been expressed long before my first message. He has demonstrated that he has no intention of heeding such advice and his continued behaviour and editing pattern is unquestionably consistent with an editor who is engaged in a disruptive agenda that is inherently incompatible with the project.
His avowed ip (talk · contribs) has exhibited a similar pattern, including this edit - the implication is explicit when one factors in that Google suggest he is/was in reality Catholic. He has gravitated predominantly towards controversial articles, with a BLP dimension, invariably to identify someone as Jewish - usually implicated in some form of criminal activity (one of the most inexplicable) ). Relevant discussions are located at the talk pages of Graham Wellington and Brewcrewer (talk · contribs), whose well-intentioned comments and legitimate actions were (repeatedly) described by the former as vandalism. I had originally hoped it was the result of inexperience, Wellington nevertheless continued to accuse Brewcrewer of stalking long after the original discussion here. There have been many disturbing comments authored by Wellington, many of which have been highlighted on his talk page; an example: [44]. Wikipedia must not indulge those who exhibit all the characteristics of an unashamedly tendentious editor. Lets keep things in perspective. SoLando (Talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In light of the above, I've seen enough to extend his block to indefinite. I don't think that Wikipedia needs to play host to the sort of campaign this user is apparently engaged in, and if a year on-wiki isn't enough for constructive contributions to emerge then there's reason to be pessimistic for the future. I won't object if another admin decides to unblock him, though I would ask in that case that the unblocking admin be willing to follow up on further complaints against this editor. MastCell Talk 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse, and add that anyone who wishes to unblock should post their rationale here. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. SoLando (Talk) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
as nom ;-).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Pffft, objection? No chance. Endorse. BLACKKITE 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Snowball endorse FWIW. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh... Probably a fine move. It would have been interetsing to see where he would have gone had he been aloud to continue under a topic ban, but admitedly my good faith in this user was nearly spent. End result was what I expected, even if I was willing to give them another chance. No big loss here. Endorse as well. 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User: continiously adding unsourced personal opinion to International School of Brussels[edit]

I hope that this is the right place for this; I don't know where else to put it.

User: is constantly inserting this to International School of Brussels even after I've told them to stop doing so (section on their talk page) because it's not notable. They have admitted that they're doing so because "if any student would like to join a school to purposely join the rugby team as an outside school activity, they should not attend ISB as their rugby team is obviously incompetent." Hence, this simply seems to be trolling. --Zabadab (Talk) @ 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention it is not properly sourced. I have left the user a warning. Tiptoety talk 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be also adding this kind of stuff in other articles [45], maybe a 3 hour block is due. Tiptoety talk 20:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my Second Account due to User:Amerique blocking me...[edit]

This is my Second Account due to User:Amerique blocking me because I Edit the Inland Empire (California article by simply just adding a picture of downtown Riverside and he accused me of a Sockpuppet he is crazy for University of California, Riverside as well I dont know If he's an Admi., but I need some help but I need help EastCoastland02 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

no duplicate quetions Smith Jones (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I got edit conficted in removing the other identical messages that the user posted here, anyway, I've indef blocked the user as evading blocks, you should have put an unblock request on your old user's talk or contact . I'm leaving the request open in case somebody wants to comment on the original block. Snowolf How can I help? 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
For the information of anyone interested in reviewing this, prior discussions occurred here:
I'm not waiting for any new accounts of his to make a series of benign edits then initiate another set of disastrous page moves or other disruption. That's always been the pattern with this guy. Every request for checkuser I've made to Alison on any account of his turned out positive. I don't "own" any articles, but I do keep an eye on a few. Ameriquedialectics 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Need clarification of WP:SYN[edit]

The current chapter in the continuing saga of editing Bircham International University involves discussion of whether and when the juxtaposition of two facts, without stating any conclusion based on those facts, violates WP:SYN by implying a conclusion. Expert guidance would be helpful at Talk:Bircham International University#Original synthesis in the lead. --Orlady (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It’s right there in black and white–“Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.”—Random832 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The trouble is that what's happening there isn't taking "claims made by different reliable sources about a subject", but rather about different subjects: Bircham International University and degree mills. Frankly, it looks like Bircham probably is a degree mill. But that juxtaposition of two statements to draw the reader to a conclusion that Wikipedia prohibits actually being stated is very weaselly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Attention on Homeopathy and Talk:Homeopathy[edit]

I put a 24 hr protection on the Homeopathy article after an edit war broke out reverting / readding a "pseudoscience infobox" on the article earlier today. I was hoping that the short protect and a request to discuss on talk would be enough, but the discussion on the talk page is not really calming down much so far. A couple of the participants came to my user talk and recommended that I extend the protection for much longer, which I'll do if I have to but I'd prefer not to.

I would like to request other uninvolved admins to lend the article and its talk page a bit of attention and your opinions. If need be, I will just protect for longer, but more admins may help defuse the situation more effectively. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Block the revert war participants. That page has been protected for a month already. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

User:Nku pyrodragon[edit]

The user Nku pyrodragon has placed a {{helpme}} tag on his/her talk page requesting alternate administrator attention. I am cross posting here on behalf of this user. Please see the users comments on his/her talk page. Thanks. --omtay38 03:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Socialized medicine / User:Freedomwarrior (again)[edit]

User previously warned (only a few days ago) about 3RR, has returned to the same pattern. User history and talk page history have numerous warnings on editwarring primarily on only a few subjects.--Gregalton (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table[edit]

This page was recently protected owing to a protracted edit war between User:Obscuredata and three other editors: User:Academic2007, User:Academic38, and User:Nomoskedasticity. A report for breach of WP:3RR was made, and the page protection was the outcome. I have been trying to help all editors involved to reach a consensus, but User:Obscuredata appears intent on continuing to edit war now that the page is unprotected. There is some discussion on the talk page, but it's primarily intentions of being bold against a consensus to which other editors have arrived. Could an admin please look in on this? I think another round of page protection might be an idea to let everyone cool off again. I've been trying to improve the article content, and a few other editors joined the fray to make improvements too, but the problem is that there are two 'sides' with a conflict of interest here (critics of the ORT vs. an employee or affiliate of the ORT), and really I'm finding it tough. If anyone has the time to take a look it could really do with some additional input...! ColdmachineTalk 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I respectfully disagree with the notion that I have a conflict of interest in relation to the Oxford Round Table page. I have done some editing on the page, but mainly my efforts have been on the talk page, trying to convince Obscuredata to consider his/her edits in relation to relevant wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Coldmachine, perhaps I am misreading what you have posted here and you don't intend to include me in that category. Would you be willing to post something on my talk page to clarify? Thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all suggesting that your efforts haven't been in good faith, but the logs from all of the users involved in this edit war suggest to me that there is some underlying conflict of interest:

Nearly all edits to Oxford Round Table: as shown here - this user was later blocked for an infringement of WP:NLT.

Nearly all edits to Oxford Round Table: as shown here

I'm assuming good faith and trying to assist these editors overcome their differences and work towards a neutral article. At present User:Obscuredata is the edit warrior in this situation, but all parties seem to have a vested interest in the content on this article, and that several users joined to edit a single article (WP:SPA aside) shortly after a debate on a forum relating to higher education issues, is unlikely to be a coincidence. As I say, it's only User:Obscuredata who is edit warring, but I think everyone could do with a break from working on this article, and the article itself could benefit from a 3rd party outside view. ColdmachineTalk 12:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Static IP, 100% link spam over 2 years[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Static IP, 100% link spam over 2 years. Not current, therefore AIV inappropriate. -- John (Daytona2 ·